Skip to main content
· 7/30/2024

Spillane v. Lamont

Citations

  • 350 Conn. 119

Syllabus

The defendants, state and municipal officials charged with oversight of public health and education, appealed from the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss the plaintiff's action on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and a judgment declaring that the public act (P.A. 21-6) that prospectively eliminated the religious exemption from the statutory (§ 10-204a) vaccination requirements for public and pri- vate school enrollment violated the plaintiffs' and their minor children's rights, under the federal and/or state constitution, to the free exercise of religion, equal protection and a free public education, as well as their rights under the statute (§ 52-571b) concerning religious freedom in Connecticut. The defendants claimed that the trial court had incorrectly concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to P.A. 21-6 satisfied the substantial claim exception, and that their statutory free exercise of religion claim under § 52-571b satisfied the statutory waiver exception, to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Held: In ruling on a motion to dismiss based on a claim of sovereign immunity, the trial court must assess the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's allegations to determine whether the plaintiff has asserted a substantial claim of a constitutional violation adequate to defeat the defense of sovereign immu- nity, but the court does not need to consider the merits of the constitutional claim in terms of its likelihood of success. The plaintiffs' claims that P.A. 21-6 violates the free exercise of religion and equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions failed as a matter of law and, therefore, should have been dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, as P.A. 21-6 is a neutral law of general applicability, and its repeal of the religious exemption was rationally related to the state's interest in protecting public health. The plaintiffs' claim that P.A. 21-6 violates their right to a fr

Judges: Robinson; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Seeley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.